Menu
Log in
Forgot password

Association for Conflict Resolution - Greater New York Chapter↑

Search
Log in
Forgot password

Status Conferences

Thursday, February 13, 2025 6:42 PM | Anonymous

Status Images – Browse 1,573,668 Stock Photos, Vectors, and Video | Adobe Stock

To what extent do status conferences take place in your arbitration proceedings? How helpful are they? Do some deem them to be a waste of time and money? If the parties don't want status conferences, what should the arbitrator do?

What are your thoughts?

Comments

  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 11:12 AM | Trey Bergman
    I set at least three status conferences at the initial scheduling conference. The first status conference is shortly after initial disclosures have been made.
    The third status conference is two weeks before the Final Hearing or Merits Hearing.
    The placement of second status conference varies with the dates in the initial Scheduling Order.
    However, 48 hours before each status conference the Parties are each required to provide the tribunal with an agenda of topics they would like to discuss or they may request to pass the status conference. This way there are three placeholders to speak with the tribunal only if the Parties feel it is necessary.
    Link  •  Reply
    • Saturday, February 15, 2025 3:03 PM | Peter Rundle
      Yes; perfect timing and process.
      Link  •  Reply
    • Wednesday, February 19, 2025 3:03 PM | David W Slaughter
      Agreed. I find that setting dates in the scheduling/case management order for one or more status conferences before the scheduled evidentiary hearing helps to keep the parties on track - and I find helpful the requirement for the parties' requested agenda for other than the final pre-hearing conference. If there's nothing to discuss, there's no need to spend the time in an interim conference.
      Link  •  
      Author
      Comment
       
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 11:12 AM | Jessica Block
    I find status conferences (or follow up case management conferences) very helpful. The conference often gets the parties focused, and if there are discovery disputes that have arisen, or a legal issue that needs to be decided, that is a good opportunity for discussion and decision among the arbitrator and the parties as to how to resolve unanticipated issues. I always have an agenda. Often, during the preliminary hearing, the parties and I set the agenda then.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 11:15 AM | Gary W. Javore
    I schedule them in every case to keep tabs on the progression of the case, usually every 60 days. If the parties indicate that everything is on track and no conference is necessary, we pass them, unless members of the Panel have an issue they want addressed.
    Link  •  Reply
    • Saturday, February 15, 2025 11:22 AM | Theodore M. Baum, Rochester, NY
      I think establishing a status conference schedule is a very good idea, but also very wise to make them optional if things are proceedings. We all know that litigators are habitual procrastinators, so establishing interim dates to make sure things are proceeding is more likely to keep the overall schedule intact.
      Link  •  Reply
      • Saturday, February 15, 2025 11:34 AM | Sandy Karlan
        I completely agree with comments that suggest Case Management Conferences are valuable and helpful in moving the matter forward.
        Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 11:26 AM | Jeff Ford, FordADR
    Always schedule status conferences and they help got issues on the table before they threaten the overall schedule. If parties have met deadlines and no live disputes and they agree nothing needs to be discussed I may agree to pass on a conference but less likely if the status conference is close to the hearing date.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 11:32 AM | Dave Tierney (Phoenix)
    Depending on the size/ complexity of the arbitration, I set three. If it is a simple two party matter, it might be one status conference, @10 days before the evidentiary hearing. I don’t like to overdue set piece conferences but always require the telephonic discussion with me preceded by any sort of “motion practice”.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 11:32 AM | Anonymous
    Ive been an arbitrator for a long long time. It isnt the "service industry" it use to be. More ofter than not, it is outside the courtroom litigation, BUT some have lost track of its original goals, effiency,reduced cost, and speed. So, i only hold status conferences if the parties request them.
    Link  •  Reply
    • Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:27 AM | Lewis Brewer
      I agree. Most of the matters before me are fairly straightforward so I only schedule a status conference when the parties want one. A vast majority of matters settle before hearing making additional status conferences unnecessary and a waste of resources.
      Link  •  Reply
    • Thursday, February 20, 2025 9:36 AM | anonymous
      I agree. The first conference for setting the schedule is essential; after that, I respond to the parties' request(s) for a status conference if they request one Note: my subject areas are employment and labor; if the experienced attorneys in those cases don't ask for my assistance, I don't see a need to impose it.
      Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 11:38 AM | Barry Leon
    Case management conferences and status conferences can be valuable in most arbitrations.

    Now that they can be (and usually are) held virtually, the cost aspect in a case of any size is relatively small, so long as some value is being added. But in deciding whether to have one at any particular point in the case, a quick "cost/benefit analysis" makes sense.

    Just as "dispute avoidance" on projects is increasingly being recognized as valuable, status conferences in an arbitration (an arbitration is a "project", is it not?) not only ensure that the case is moving along but can nip procedural disputes in the bud.

    Second, if parties are not sufficiently focused on the road ahead, status conferences can get them and keep them focused.

    Third, they may keep the tribunal more engaged than otherwise would be the case, and fourth, send a message to the parties that the tribunal is engaged.

    Having said all that, they will be a waste of time and money if they are purposeless, or if the parties and the tribunal are not prepared.

    You ask what a tribunal should do if the parties don't want status conferences.

    First, the tribunal should listen to why they don't want them. If they have a good reason, that should be the end of the matter.

    But if they don't have a good reason, and if the tribunal believes that conferences may be useful at particular points along the way, the tribunal should convene them. This might be done by explaining that the tribunal believes that a conference will be of assistance to it, that it would like to try one at the first appropriate opportunity, and "all of us can see how it goes". (Its a bit like the parties in a dispute not wanting to mediate because "this case will never settle" ... and often it does.)
    Link  •  Reply
    • Saturday, February 15, 2025 12:30 PM | Bryan F. Hickey
      I agree that status conferences are a wonderful tool if used only as needed. I might add that the great AAA case managers often have a mother's intuition as to when they are needed. Best to all,
      Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 12:33 PM | Jay Hunston
    I set status conferences at the time of the Preliminary Hearing, but require agendas from the parties at least five business days prior to each. If nothing needs to be addressed and the parties request cancellation, I cancel it. It keeps the process moving, but reduces unnecessary costs to the parties.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 12:59 PM | W. Hensell Harris, Jr.
    The last AAA case that went to hearing, the Panel unfortunately let the parties have too much time to schedule too much discovery and we built in periodic Status conferences, to determine if the parties were on schedule to make the hearing date. Most conferences were cancelled by agreement. and not held, but they did serve as a good place holder for everyone to be available if needed.

    Best advice-do not allow too much discovery and too much time before scheduling the hearing, and hold the parties feet to the fire on scheduled hearing date.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 1:35 PM | Phil Cutler
    Unless the time to the evidentiary hearing after the initial prelim is very, very short, I set at least three additional conferences. The first will be to discuss the parties' requests for "discovery" in addition to what is provided by their exchange of "reliance" documents and identification of key witneses (which they are normally obligated to provide 30-45 days after the initial prelim). I generally hold a mid-case status conference to make sure the case is "on track". I always schedule a final prehearing conference 2-4 weeks prior to the evidentiary hearing to discuss logistics and any other open issues. If a dispositive motion will be heard, I will schedule a time for argument.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 1:48 PM | Karen Fitzgerald
    I am both an arbitrator for AAA and an active litigator. If the parties do not want a status conference, I do not schedule it. If I feel there is a unique issue that justifies a status conference, I'll schedule it. As an attorney who still represents parties in arbitration, I find that the arbitrators are doing far to much to make the process much more expensive for the parties than it needs to be. By adding unnecessary status conferences, it just makes the process far more expensive for my clients--which is the exact opposite of what arbitration is supposed to do.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 2:43 PM | James Elegante
    In complex cases, I schedule two status conferences during the initial Scheduling Conference: One somewhere in the middle or towards the end of the Discovery Phase; the second approximately four weeks before the Evidentiary Hearing. I never find them to be a waste of time and money and in only one instance just a few days before a scheduled status conference have the parties told me that they were ready for trial and saw no need for a conference. I, of course, did not hold the conference. For simple cases, I invite the parties to ask me for a Status Conference but I do not schedule it initially. I would not force the parties to agree to a status conference, but if I detect that the parties are not focused on the procedure to be followed in the Evidentiary Hearing, I suggest that a conference might be beneficial for efficiency at the hearing.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 2:45 PM | Michael W Hawkins
    Status conferences are very beneficial to all. First, it gives the Arbitrator the opportunity to set the tone for professionalism throughout to proceeding especially as to discovery and timing of moving the case forward. It also gives the Arbitrator the opportunity to learn about the claim and defense and help shape the discovery and timing for the case. Additional conferences are great to keep the case moving and determine the extent of the hearing, witnesses and exhibits.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 3:11 PM | Anonymous
    I do not schedule status conferences. I tell the lawyers to contact me if there any problems with discovery or anything else that needs my attention. I rarely have lawyers who ask me to set status conferences.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 3:19 PM | Steven J Kaplan
    I handle mandatory employment arbitrations. I set an interim conference in each case, about midway between initial conference and final status conference. They can be useful to kickstart discovery where parties have been slow or dilatory. Often the conferences also allow the parties to raise issues they might not otherwise raise until the last minute.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 3:51 PM | marietta Shipley
    I find status conferences are most helpful to both sides. If one party is not following the scheduling order, it is an excellent time to review that issue and perhaps make some changes. It is a great opportunity for the arbitrator to keep asking the parties if they are having settlement discussions. I like to have several status conferences , rather than just set a hearing date. In that way I can keep up with what the parties are doing and set realistic dates for all concerned.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 6:36 PM | Marty Coleman
    I scheduled status conferences every 60 - 90 days and set them at 8 or 8:30 am, so they don't disrupt the rest of the day. I ask counsel what is happening in the case and if they are on track for our hearing. If all seems to be well, the calls can last as little as 5 minutes, so they don't add much expense. If an issue is brewing, we are often able to get it on track to resolution more quickly than if it was allowed to fester. The conferences also often give me a sense of whether the case will actually go to hearing or will be resolved between the parties.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 7:08 PM | Hon. Patrick Walsh
    Here is my take on status conferences. At the preliminary hearing, I set a final status conference about 30 days before the merits hearing so that I can go over the ground rules for the merits hearing and make sure everyone is ready to go. As you know, in the vast majority of cases, the case is settled or the lawyers have asked to move the merits hearing before that date. I almost never set a status conference other than the final status conference. The exceptions to this rule are if the lawyers ask me to or if it seems that the proceedings are going to be difficult/contentious and I want to keep a closer handle on the lawyers. I have not had a situation where the I have set a status conference mid-proceedings and the lawyers have objected. If that did happen to me, I would inquire as to why they were pushing back and weigh their reasons against my desire to hold a hearing. If, in the end, their reasons for not having a hearing outweighed my reasons for having one, I would not have one.

    I have been a member of panels in which the chair or the panel decided to hold a status conference mid-discovery. Sometimes they have been helpful and sometimes they have not.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Saturday, February 15, 2025 8:17 PM | Harold Aspis
    As an arbitrator, I find status conferences very useful in fixing the schedule, setting a tone and informing counsel of my expectations for how the hearings and case will proceed.
    If a status conference is set and if, a few days before conference, counsel think everything is moving along on the right path, counsel can advise me that they don’t think the conference is necessary and then I will , of course, cancel the conference.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Sunday, February 16, 2025 12:24 PM | Dustin Hecker
    I will usually have the case manager schedule a short status conference after discovery is scheduled to be completed. However, I make clear if there is nothing to discuss at that point and the attorneys do not feel a need to have a formal conference they can send me an email or letter saying they do not think it is needed. I virtually always schedule a pretrial conference three or four weeks before the hearing on the merits to go over last-minute items and to make sure the case really is ready to be tried. Other than that I tell the lawyers I am available if anything comes up and expect one or the other will contact me if they need my attention to something.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Sunday, February 16, 2025 5:05 PM | Anonymous
    Status Conferences are the heart and sole of the Arbitration Process. No issue is set for a formal hearing until an informal Status Conference has been concluded. Most every issue can be taken care of at a Status Conference. Discovery issues, communication issues, setting dates, PHO compliance, most any dispute gets an informal SC where successful resolution is almost always obtained.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Sunday, February 16, 2025 8:26 PM | Robert Wright
    The need for status conferences is more appropriate for large and complex cases and also when there are multiple parties. The objective is to address any preliminary matters early while keeping to the agreed upon schedule.

    Since arbitrators serve the parties, if the parties do not want a status conference then none should occur.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, February 17, 2025 9:36 AM | Tim Warner
    Status Conferences work, especially before the arbitration hearing - to focus the parties on the upcoming hearing and organization issues, etc.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, February 17, 2025 10:54 AM | Robert H. Flynn
    I think a planned 15 minute ZOOM status conference can help corral over enthusiastic discovery lawyers and keep deadlines concrete – particularly when clients are present too!
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, February 17, 2025 12:35 PM | Leslie W Langbein
    I normally discuss the availability of status conferences in my initial pre-hearing conference. I see no need to force the parties to schedule periodic status conferences. But that said, I require status conferences when the parties are not communicating appropriately and I need to get them back on track to work cooperatively.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, February 17, 2025 3:37 PM | Debra A. Jenks
    Absolutely essential.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, February 17, 2025 3:51 PM | B. Ted Howes
    Depending on the complexity of the matter, I always schedule at least two status conferences: one being the standard case management conference held a few weeks before the final evidentiary hearing and the other one usually following the deadline for document discovery applications. I have never found the final case management conference to be a waste of time, as it covers inevitable logistical issues that must be ironed out to make the hearing efficient. Conducting an evidentiary hearing without a pre-hearing case management conference is a recipe for unnecessary and time-consuming disputes at the hearing over simple issues that should have been resolved ahead of time.

    In my experience, a status conference following discovery applications usually helps the parties narrow their issues of dispute; it also tends to helps me better understand the applications at hand -- what is important or not so important in terms of fact finding. While these interim status conferences do not always produce substantive results, I have never heard parties object to holding them. In the worst case, the parties' respective positions on discovery are made clearer with relatively little waste of money or time.

    In general, I believe it is up to the arbitrator to get the parties speaking to one another about case issues, rather than just sending emails back and forth. The status conference serves that important purpose.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Monday, February 17, 2025 9:05 PM | JEROME ALLAN LANDAU
    Notwithstanding a Scheduling Order, I think the scheduling of a Status Conference is a means to keep counsel "on their toes" - this more often than not needed as an excuse for counsel to better ensure they are actively working a case. If no conference has been scheduled I will send an email reminding them of the Scheduling Order, of my availability and reminding them that there is now a "record" in my file that will be raised if they were ask for the hearing date to be postponed.
    Link  •  Reply
Association for Conflict Resolution - Greater New York Chapter

© ACR-GNY

Contact Us

Email us at questions@acrgny.org

ACR-GNY's mission and programming are generously sponsored by:

ADR Notable: Dispute Resolution Management Made Easy
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software